SINCLAIR -v- THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2007] WASCA 253

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 253
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:142/2007	Heard:	9 NOVEMBER 2007
Coram:	PULLIN JA NEWNES AJA	Delivered:	8/11/07
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LINDSAY KAY SINCLAIR THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH in his capacity as THE BOARD OF KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for extension of time in which to appeal Turns on own facts
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79
Case References:	Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Allmark v Mossenson [2006] WASCA 127 Gallo v Dawson (No 2) (1992) 66 ALJR 859 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 Wing Luck Foods v Le Chou Lim [1989] WAR 358

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SINCLAIR -v- THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2007] WASCA 253 CORAM : PULLIN JA

NEWNES AJA

HEARD : 9 NOVEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 142 of 2007 BETWEEN : LINDSAY KAY SINCLAIR

Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH in his capacity as THE BOARD OF KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : GOETZE DCJ

File No : CIV 4532 of 1994

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for extension of time in which to appeal - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79

Result:

Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr D R Clyne & Ms W S Meggison

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Dibbs Abbott Stillman

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Allmark v Mossenson [2006] WASCA 127
Gallo v Dawson (No 2) (1992) 66 ALJR 859
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285
Wing Luck Foods v Le Chou Lim [1989] WAR 358

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN JA: This is an application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and to appeal against the orders made by Judge Goetze. The notice of appeal and the application for leave was filed one day out of time. If an extension of time and leave is granted the appellant proposes in the appeal to challenge the interlocutory orders made by Judge Goetze.

2 The orders consisted of commonsense management orders to allow for a smooth trial and an order that the appellant answer two interrogatories. Case management orders were for the provision of documents, the provision of the names of experts who had prepared reports, the preparation of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sinclair v The Minister for Health and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] WASCA 253
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Sinclair v The Minister for Health was heard in the Federal Court. The dispute involved the applicant seeking an extension of time to lodge an appeal. The application hinged on the principle that each case must be assessed on its own merits, particularly when the circumstances justify an extension. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's circumstances warranted an extension of time beyond the statutory limit for filing an appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was excusable and if there were any special circumstances that warranted an extension. The court considered the applicant's reasons for the delay, the impact of that delay on the respondent, and whether there were any significant changes in the law or facts since the original decision. The court also examined the applicant's conduct in pursuing the appeal and whether the extension would unduly prejudice the respondent.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court found that the applicant's delay was not adequately justified and that there were no special circumstances that warranted an extension. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for appeals and noted that extensions are not granted lightly. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an extension, and the application was dismissed. The court also noted that granting an extension in this case would set a precedent that could undermine the integrity of the appeal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.